Posted: Thu 08 Nov 2012, 18:22 Post subject:
Collaborating as a team or group for Puppy good

One of the frustrations that many of us have is that the forum is NOT a collaboration facility. It is a forum where after 1 gets off the podium another steps up...mostly to announce or provide assistance.

BUT, as we all know, it does NOT allow collaboration. Collaboration is where a group can equally (sometimes) interoperate together. For example several developers can simultaneously contribute to the same project/application. Or several people can contribute to writing a User Guide.

As you can see, we can bring to bear our Google ID for the good of Puppy too. Its free and allow us PUPs to work in "a pack" to achieve something for Puppy good... er, I mean 'Public Good'.

Here to help_________________Get ACTIVE Create Circles; Do those good things which benefit people's needs!
We are all related ... Its time to show that we know this!
3 Different Puppy Search Enginesor use DogPile

The Wiki is good for collaborating on documentation. With software is good to have some sort of "versioning" system. I see the ideal being some sort of Puppy foundation, where bugs and features are tracked and managed. I don't think Barry would like to work this way, so it might involve using a fork or version.

I really don't trust yahoo, google, or google docs, or any other unpaid service. If there is to be a forum allowing greater collaboration I think it would be better to be away from the "free" offerings for two reasons:
1) They seem slow - possible because they can be loaded with adware and also because the site design is determined by what the big corporate wants (eg flash, heavy scripting, special formatting like google docs etc etc)
2) I prefer the "keep it simple" principal and I just don't think it helps matters to have weighty corporate sites as a discussion hub. I think a paid service would encourage users to be on-topic and motivated.

Anyway, I'm sick of google skewing the internet toward the capitalist universe. I find them intrusive and no longer a servant - more of a master. Even microsoft is highlighting Googles shady manipulation of the data they present.
http://www.datamation.com/news/microsoft-attacks-google-search-with-scroogled-campaign.html
I recently went to a small business conference and was disgusted to find out how powerful google's manipulation of search data is. And how easy it is to get backdoor access to information that should be private.

I'd like any puppy development to be completely out of the gaze/reach of corporate taint. And I'd be happy to pay a subscription to be able to do that. I've got several ideas I'd like to patent and implement via puppy, but would never want to see useful 'ground floor' ideas be snapped up and locked up by the corporate world.

What I would really like to see is a form of "conference PM" so that ideas could be discussed offline by a specific group of interested parties. Sometimes it is destructive to discuss a problem "online" and can make a forum topic untidy and fragmented, but PM-ing is only one-to-one which can restrict it's usefulness. Something between the two extremes could be ideal.

Even microsoft is highlighting Googles shady manipulation of the data they present.

"Even Microsoft"?
Isn't Microsoft Google's number 1 competitor?

Quote:

I'd like any puppy development to be completely out of the gaze/reach of corporate taint.

Seriously? You think just because a project is hosted on Google code it is tainted? In what way?

Iguleder wrote:

Let's make a "puppylinux" account in GitHub - individual developers will be given permissions to contribute code to repositories under it.

Things like Slickpet and Pmusic (e.g a repository for each project) could be stored there.

Would this mean git would be promoted for Puppy development. Personally I think that would be kind of wrong since git is so massive - the opposite of Puppy. Or did amigo manage to cut git down to a reasonable size? And I think most Puppy projects are small enough that they can be handled well with a more lightweight vcs._________________If you have or know of a good gtkdialog application, please post a link here

As Slacko dev winds down I was thinking it might be a good idea to shift raspberry pi development to something like that. Barry has some good ideas with woof but I think with some trimming and optimising for pi (of course if the interest is there) that a good build system could be implemented with Fossil.

Note that Barry uses Fossil too at bkhome.org, but no body has any rights there as yet._________________Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

There is a one bar delay in realtime collaboration, which seems like a suitable compromise until quantum physics is established
Only tried it once to test, but I think some people use it a lot.

I would trust a musicians site more than some Google dumbed down empire (air guitar?)
who's ultimate goal is to gather all the data in the world and flog it?

Google and Wall Street etc are turning human beings into commodities and are responsible for a lot of social ills in the world today. Maybe if Google was just turned into some kind of public library for public good it would be better, with some adverts to keep it going.
Could be wrong though. Maybe Google are an okay company...

But there was that fiasco about grabbing private wireless data as their Skynet machine mapped the streets of the world!

I would have thought a Puppy team could just use a private chat room, and an ftp site for files, and arrange "meetings"?
Wouldn't that do the job gc Martin?

Would this mean git would be promoted for Puppy development. Personally I think that would be kind of wrong since git is so massive - the opposite of Puppy. Or did amigo manage to cut git down to a reasonable size? And I think most Puppy projects are small enough that they can be handled well with a more lightweight vcs.

Git isn't THAT heavy and has all features you'll ever need (*ahem ahem Fossil doesn't*).

More points for Git:
- It's easy to use. Fossil isn't.
- Command-line friendly. No need for a browser as in Fossil.
- Supports symlinks. Barry's Fossil symlinks hack is awful. Got a better solution? I don't - having a version control system that has transparent support for symlinks is the way to go, IMHO.
- Repositories can be cloned and merged easily - great for collaboration. Compare this to SVN. Can anyone tell how to easily clone a Fossil repository?
- There are many reliable hosting services for it. How many Fossil ones do you know and use for your own projects?

As a grateful fossil user, I feel compelled to correct the misinformation about it.

Iguleder wrote:

More points for Git:
- It's easy to use. Fossil isn't.

says one who uses git. As a fossil user I would say otherwise
Actually commands for any SCM systems are quite similar to each other (and this isn't a co-incidence), so knowing one is knowing them all.

Quote:

- Command-line friendly. No need for a browser as in Fossil.

Fossil doesn't need browser. Everything can be done through command line. Fossil does come with an in-built http server, so one can see stuff in browser if one is allergic to command line. Git OTOH requires 3rd party support web browsing (cgit, gitweb, etc).

Quote:

- Supports symlinks. Barry's Fossil symlinks hack is awful. Got a better solution? I don't - having a version control system that has transparent support for symlinks is the way to go, IMHO.

This information is very outdated. Fossil's support for symlink is over a year already now. Fatdog's repo is full of symlinks, no hacks used.

Quote:

- Repositories can be cloned and merged easily - great for collaboration. Compare this to SVN. Can anyone tell how to easily clone a Fossil repository?

fossil clone http://repository

Quote:

- There are many reliable hosting services for it. How many Fossil ones do you know and use for your own projects?

Ok, you've got me on this. I only know chiselapp.com as the only public fossil hosting. However setting up a a fossil hosting only requires a webhosting with a cgi capabilities (which means almost all webhosts).

Quote:

I think Trac (for milestones, bug tracking, etc'), a Git repository (for code) and DokuWiki (for end-user documentation) are the way to go.

You've got all this with fossil for free, no need to 3rd party applications. Fossil's got wiki, bug-tracker, events (=milestones), and the SCM itself - in one executable. In one "fossil clone" you get a copy not only of the code, but also the wiki, the bug trackers, the milestones ... how easy is it to do the same with git + trac + dokuwiki? Plus, fossil repository is one single file. Making a backup is as simply as copying a file.

I'm not saying that git is bad. I use git too. But fossil isn't as terrible as you seem to make it to be._________________Fatdog64, Slacko and Puppeee user. Puppy user since 2.13.
Contributed Fatdog64 packages thread.

Yes, but it's ironic that Microsoft feels they have enough evidence to start calling out google for shady anti-competitive business practices when Microsoft have themselves been accused of the same thing for so long. Microsoft wouldn't risk those comments in todays market if it were not true.

Quote:

"I'd like any puppy development to be completely out of the gaze/reach of corporate taint.".
Seriously? You think just because a project is hosted on Google code it is tainted? In what way?

Google manipulates data access in ways that many users are not aware of. I used google to help my mother find out her medical results that should not have been available online. I just don't like the pervasive nature of google and the fact that they make one persons private info available to anyone smart enough to access it. (or anyone who happens to be paying google for inside knowledge).

I don't like the idea that innovative ideas that belong to Puppy could be poached by corporates.

And I don't like watching "google-analytics" chewing up my bandwidth and wasting my time.

I support Puppy because it supports individual freedom and efficiency. I dislike google because I find it subversive and unrestrained. It's just a personal thing. And I would definitely like to see certain aspects of puppy development done out of the public eye - I think the collaborative process could probably benefit from a closed 'conference' type of approach at certain times. I think PM achieves that to a certain degree, but as far as I am aware it can't be used in a conference mode. If it were possible to 'cc' a PM maybe that would go part way to increasing the speed, breadth and focus of collaboration.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum